"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quotes a license:
> You may not charge a fee for the sole service of > providing access to and/or use of the OC via a network (e.g. the > Internet), whether it be via the world wide web, FTP, or any other > method. This is non-free. The clause was probably put there because the authors donot like the idea of someone "making a profit" from their work. However, as long as *someone* (e.g., the authors) makes the program available for free download it is highly unlikely that *anyone* would be able to make a profit from selling download rights. Thus reality itself would probably protect the authors' intentions just as well as a non-free could do. In any case *if* someone sometime could make a profit from offering restricted download of free software, the reason people would pay him for download privileges must be related to his investment in fast servers, good net connections, well-informed choice of software to offer, or other things that gives the customer a tangible benefit compared to downloading it from a gratis server. In this case the fee would be morally equivalent to costs to cover media, shipping and handling when selling physical copies of software; and software that didn't allow this kind of value addition would not be truly free. Otherwise than that, the license looks just like a simplified GPL clone to me. -- Henning Makholm http://www.diku.dk/students/makholm
